Post Passage Messaging Guide

The following is a summary of research prepared collaboratively by Herndon Alliance with Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and Lake Research Partners. Note that because this is a high-level overview, much of the context and detail are omitted.

Research Results

Executive Summary

Messaging on healthcare reform continues to pose a challenge to supporters of the health law. Not only did opponents successfully define the law as increasing costs and a government takeover of the private sector, but it is clear that voters still do not have a clear idea of the law’s status, content, or how it will be implemented.

It has been very difficult to get traction on improving views towards healthcare reform. This research was undertaken to identify a positive case for reform; one that would help make gains in support and build resistance to repeal of the law.

Obviously every public debate has its own context, but the research suggests some common threads that will help supporters successfully communicate about the healthcare legislation and efforts around repeal.[1]

Most significantly, we found the public can be substantially moved from initial skepticism of the law to favorable feelings toward healthcare reform. A specific communications approach—the use of a personal story wrapped around two or three simple reforms— is required to facilitate this shift in attitude.

Findings

TOP BENEFITS: The most compelling benefits of the reform law: (in order of popularity)

1. Bans denials due to pre-existing conditions;

2. No more dropping patients when they get sick;

3. Ends lifetime Caps;

4. Provides tax credits for small businesses;

5. Offers free preventive care.

KEEP IT SIMPLE: Communication about the law must be educative and not assume that people know the content of the legislation or how it will impact them—or even that a law has passed. The language must be kept simple—telling people how the law works and focusing on the core provisions that the public values.

TELL SIMPLE PERSONAL STORIES: coupled with non-rhetorical statements of how the law would benefit people at the individual level are the most compelling way to talk about the law. These stories need to be credible; despite the fact that people have suffered from horrific experiences at the hands of insurance companies, it is more believable when the story is simple (e.g., a child denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition). Narratives that make broad, rhetorical claims about what the legislation will do are less powerful and are prone to “overstating” the short-term impact, thus undermining overall credibility.

WOMEN: Women are important targets of communication about healthcare reform and are also ideal messengers; rectifying inequities in women’s health stand out as key benefits of reform. Research for Herndon and others also demonstrates the strength of covering preventive care without co-pays or other out-of-pocket costs.

IT AIN’T PERFECT: It is helpful to use “bridge” statements about the law, to give permission to people to relax their defensive reactions to the law. The strongest testing statement allows that “the law isn’t perfect, but we need to improve it, not repeal it.”

TELL THEIR OWN STORY: Candidates themselves are not the most effective messengers about the law—they should allow their constituents to tell their story of how the law rectifies a wrong committed against them or will lead to better health outcomes.

IN THE SAME BOAT: At the same time, it is critical to communicate that Members of Congress will be required to participate in the same plans as the rest of the country. Language around this issue is challenging, however, as delving into the details of healthcare exchanges threatens to overcomplicate the narrative.

SENIORS: In addition to questions of cost and scarcity, there is real vulnerability around charges that the healthcare reform law cuts Medicare by a half trillion dollars and endangers the coverage seniors enjoy. As other research has shown, seniors respond favorably to personal stories, reassurance that basic Medicare benefits are protected and that preventative care is now free.

Conclusion

We saw marginal gains against repeal and we saw substantial movement in favorable feelings towards healthcare reform – resulting in overall support for reform particularly when a personal story is paired against generic conservative attacks on healthcare.

We view these results as considerable progress in moving the debate about healthcare reform forward.